Talk:Temple Mount

Better sourcing for introduction

For this section "The Israeli government enforces a ban on prayer by non-Muslims as part of an arrangement usually referred to as the "status quo" " two of the sources linked are very heavily opinionated and biased articles. One of an account of prominent reactionary and the second is an opinion piece, both provide little insight into the policies and have little to do with the text written. (sources [32][33] for reference)

I'd suggest removing them, they would be more relevent in a chapter discussing issues of entry rather than referenced in the opening section. Galdrack (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The sources are not being cited for their opinions, but for the fact that the "status quo" is a thing that in fact exists. If you have other sources you think would be better, please suggest those. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts I think the links from this wiki page make more sense Status Quo (Jerusalem and Bethlehem) or Temple Mount entry restrictions, indeed to just link to one of those pages would probably make more sense here. Galdrack (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Galdrack Wikipedia is not itself a reliable source, so we still need to cite to something other than another Wikipedia article or the two sources that were cited back in January when I declined this request. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts that's fair, I got this source from one of those pages which seems a lot better than the previous ones

https://ecf.org.il/media_items/1486 Galdrack (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

With an alt link to the Archive.org site for the original https://archive.org/details/cust-status-quo-holy-places/page/n5/mode/2up Galdrack (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

In regard to citations, there is a sentence that surprised me. It’s says “ For Sunni and Shia Muslims alike, it ranks as the third holiest site in Islam.”

The reference offered is a link to a Wikipedia page about Sunni Islam. I would think this sentence should, for a high standard, follow the format you’re requiring here, and would offer a non-wikipedia reference for both Sunni and Shia beliefs. Do you agree? 49.185.168.147 (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2024

In the first paragraph where it reads "that has been venerated as a holy site in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam for thousands of years."

It is odd since Islam doesn't have thousands of years. I understand the wish to treat all religions the same way, but that is no reason to try to change facts.

The easiest way to edit would be to remove "for thousands of years", but if we want to keep the message that it has been venerated for a long time we should make if factually correct, something like: "that has been venerated as a holy site in Judaism and Christianity for thousands of years, and by Islam for hundreds of years."

Since Christianity is just two thousand years old I think saying it more like this: "that has been venerated as a holy site in Judaism for thousands of years, and by Christianity and Islam for hundreds of years."

There are a lot of ways... but keeping Wikipedia factually incorrect shouldn't be one of them. Joaquim Calainho (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done ZionniThePeruser (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

How this paragraph currently stands still implies something fallacious. Probably best to remove the phrase “thousands of years” altogether if you’re not going to spell out the time periods.

In my view, to avoid misunderstandings and misrepresentations this page should at least give reference to the time lines and the claims for significance. It would ideally say something like “This site holds profound religious significance for the three Abrahamic religions. Originally a Jewish holy site dating back to at least 957 BCE; it has been an Islamic holy site since the 7th century, and a Christian holy site since the 12th century.”

To bring the page up to a high standard this paragraph would be expanded with a single sentence on each of the conflicts which resulted in a change of authority, and hyperlinks out to existing Wikipedia pages which describe those conflicts in detail.

A disproportionate number of the sources are narrative driven. Narrative driven sources can be important where appropriate but they can imply bias. If you’re unable to access historiography with a focus on evidence then be careful to be aware of your own bias. Aim for specificity over vagueness. 49.199.93.77 (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. I meant to xx out the dates and places. I’m not sure they are accurate, I meant to just suggest a format. I do think that Wikipedia users expect hyperlinks to more detailed pages about the conflicts and dates with such a hugely significant topic, so I believe it’s worth putting the effort in here if your aim is to improve Wikipedia. I do trust that Wikipedia’s process will iron out any duplicitous edits, although it may take some time to identify patterns of behaviour. 49.185.168.147 (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

My understanding of Wikipedia policy may not be adequate. I now read that Wikipedia links are not sufficient. I had expected that they were based on my usage of Wikipedia. Perhaps I misunderstand when they are acceptable. My concern is just with wanting the page to reach a high standard because I’m finding that the pages on this topic all have notifications of disputes and editing restrictions, and that they are often lack the clarity needed to use those pages as an encyclopaedic summary. I am not involved or invested in this conflict but have been trying to understand it because of the vast difference in news reports depending in who is reporting. I have noticed that some official pages lack balance ie some of the pages of museums and other repositories that I’d expect to be comprehensive are very one-sided. It makes studying this topic very difficult; but I think it’s worth mentioning so that editors are aware. I won’t disclose where I found the bias as that would be annecdote anyway. I mention this to suggest that anyone editing pages refrain from labelling anything as ‘propaganda’ (one person’s propaganda is another person’s primary or official source); and instead take care to look at multiple sources from both sides of the conflict. This will help ensure that there aren’t omission which are misleading; this is preferable to striving for some kind of ‘fairness’ that ends up producing false balance. 49.185.168.147 (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2024

The first paragraph under the section "Temple Mount" is very poorly punctuated and, in a few cases, phrased. Here is my suggestion for cleaning it up:

ORIGINAL The term Har haBayīt – commonly translated as "Temple Mount" in English – was first used in the books of Micah (4:1) and Jeremiah (26:18) – literally as "Mount of the House", a literary variation of the longer phrase "Mountain of the House of the Lord" – the abbreviation was not used again in the later books of the Hebrew Bible[38] or in the New Testament.[39] The term was used throughout the Second Temple period, however, the term Mount Zion – which today refers to the eastern hill of ancient Jerusalem – was more frequently used. Both terms are in use in the Book of Maccabees.[40] The term Har haBayīt is used throughout the Mishnah and later Talmudic texts.[41][42]

SHOWING MARKUP The term Har haBayīt —– commonly translated as "Temple Mount" in English —– was first used in the books of Micah (4:1) and Jeremiah (26:18), – literally as "Mount of the House", a literary variation of the longer phrase "Mountain of the House of the Lord". – Tthe abbreviation was not used again in the later books of the Hebrew Bible[38] or in the New Testament.[39] The term was usedremained in use throughout the Second Temple period, however,although the term Mount Zion, – which today refers to the eastern hill of ancient Jerusalem, – was used more frequently used.

CLEAN REVISED VERSION The term Har haBayīt — commonly translated as "Temple Mount" in English — was first used in the books of Micah (4:1) and Jeremiah (26:18), literally as "Mount of the House", a literary variation of the longer phrase "Mountain of the House of the Lord". The abbreviation was not used again in the later books of the Hebrew Bible[38] or in the New Testament.[39] The term remained in use throughout the Second Temple period, although the term Mount Zion, which today refers to the eastern hill of ancient Jerusalem, was used more frequently. Modularscholar (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

You seem better versed in both topic and procedure. Would you care to take a look at the lede? It currently reads with a an over extended sentence that ends “…is a hill in the Old City of Jerusalem that has been venerated as a holy site for thousands of years, including in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.”

For expediency I suggest:

”The Temple Mount (Hebrew: הַר הַבַּיִת, romanized: Har haBayīt, lit. 'Mount of the House [of the Holy]'), also known as Haram al-Sharif (Arabic: الحرم الشريف, lit. 'The Noble Sanctuary'), al-Aqsa Mosque compound, or simply al-Aqsa (/æl ˈæksə/; المسجد الأقصى, al-Masjid al-Aqṣā, lit. 'The Furthest Mosque'). It is sometimes referred to in popular media as “Jerusalem's Holy Esplanade”, and is a hill in the Old City of Jerusalem that has been venerated as a holy site by all three Abrahamic religions; Judaism, Christianity and Islam.”

Thoughts? 49.185.168.147 (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 September 2024

Rename it to Al-Aqsa mosque

2607:FA49:4203:4000:EDB0:B1D1:B3AB:AAD0 (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Wrong language links mess

Why is "Temple Mount" article linked to the "المسجد الأقصى" (Al-Aqsa Mosque) article in Arabic?

"Temple Mount" is a hill/location in Jerusalem, and not a mosque. Currently the Al-Aqsa [article:] which is a compount, is located on it, which in its turn contains the "Al-Aqsa Mosque" [article] which is linked to "Temple Mount" in Arabic. Why?

"Temple Mount" article should be linked to "جبل المعبد" [article], which is currently redirected to "Al-Aqsa Mosque" instead. Why?

It's the "Al-Aqsa Mosque" article that should be actually linked to "المسجد الأقصى".

I am facing a lot of issues with Arabic articles which seem biased towards Islam, but it should remain neurtal. I tried to fix the links in the past, and create the relevant articles in Arabic, but they were all reverted.

Jimmyp84 (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

On the English wiki we have no control or responsibility for the content of the Arabic wiki. If there is a better choice for the interwiki link, tell us, but it has to be an article which exists. Zero^talk 06:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)